(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

fireball -> (4/9/2003 12:07:37 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vetkin [B]I'm wondering what if Russia suddenly decides to back Iraq in some way, now that US troops has attacked the Russian ambassador & consul that were fleeing from Baghdad... It's far-fetched but you never know. BTW does anybody here know if the T-95 is already in use? It's rumored to have a 135mm gun that has the range of the M1's 120mm but have better penetration. It also has enough armor to stop an APFSDS round (supposedly, or at least make it bounce off) Imagine if the US and Russia goes to war (theoretical) Not that I would want them to.. M1A2 vs T-95 Mi-28 Havoc vs Ah-64D Apache MiG-29/Su-27 vs F-18/F-16/F-15 M2A2 vs BMP-3 It's gonna be crazy :eek: BTW, why haven't I seen a single F-16 Falcon in the news? Favorite fighter-bomber of mine :D [/B][/QUOTE] Their armed forces are in a horrible shape due to lack of $$$. Deploying a Russian force of any size to the Gulf would be pretty difficult as it is now, let alone them taking on any U.S. forces. As I said earlier, the Russian system is inferior to the U.S. one. It's not the individual platforms that are the problem (at least on land), but how they are all integrated into one big picture and directed. Oh, and as for the F-16s, they are definitely there (deployed in Qatar I believe). I agree though, you don't see or hear as much of them as you did in '91. fireball

Belisarius -> (4/9/2003 1:38:19 PM)
As for the Russian equipment, I'll let that pass. :p Just don't underestimate it. It's not as high-tech or fancy as their U.S. counterparts, but they're effective.... blah. About the F-16s... I'm just pulling this out of my a$$, but there doesn't seem to be that many deployed? I'm thinking that they're letting the Navy and B-bombers take the major part of the strike sorties and the F-16s take more of an escort/ patrol duty? At the Navy page, there's one photo in the "current photos" section showing a F-18 refueling over Iraq - with snow-covered mountains below. They're all over the area, apparently.

Irinami -> (4/9/2003 8:45:28 PM)
Uh, guys. It's not Russian equipment so much as dated equipment. The T-72 is a 1970's-early-80's piece of equipment. The M1 series comes from the same time frame... but the A1 is a 1980's vehicle, the A2 is a 1990's weapon. That makes quite a difference as well.

Vetkin -> (4/9/2003 9:09:17 PM)
Yeah, try playing SP3 with "basic" M1 tanks with L7 105s, they really suck... well, they're equals with the T-80s and can even be delayed by T-72s. The M256 120mm smoothbore really made a big difference. And you're right, the T-72A doesn't have missiles but the T-72Bs do have them,including heavy armor (almost as heavy as T-80) 6 At-11 "Svir" missiles, with a range of !5,000! meters... 1,000 meters more than the M256 These missiles have a penetration of 700mm! The M1A2 has frontal armor of 670mm... so for all you SP:WAW tank buffs out there, calculate the chance of it penetrating M1A2 armor (probably 40-45 degrees slope in the front) No range penalties since its HEAT. I wanna know the chances hehehe

fireball -> (4/10/2003 4:37:35 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vetkin [B]Yeah, try playing SP3 with "basic" M1 tanks with L7 105s, they really suck... well, they're equals with the T-80s and can even be delayed by T-72s. The M256 120mm smoothbore really made a big difference. And you're right, the T-72A doesn't have missiles but the T-72Bs do have them,including heavy armor (almost as heavy as T-80) 6 At-11 "Svir" missiles, with a range of !5,000! meters... 1,000 meters more than the M256 These missiles have a penetration of 700mm! The M1A2 has frontal armor of 670mm... so for all you SP:WAW tank buffs out there, calculate the chance of it penetrating M1A2 armor (probably 40-45 degrees slope in the front) No range penalties since its HEAT. I wanna know the chances hehehe [/B][/QUOTE] Is there a site on the internet I can learn how to calculate armor penetration from? fireball

Wolfleader -> (4/10/2003 9:03:41 AM)
Haven't heard about the T-95 yet, can anyone provide me with linkage to more info. I wouldn't exactly dismiss Russian equipment as of poor quality, while it's certainly not as sophisticated as most of our equipment its certainly much more rugged and sturdy and can likely perform just as well as any AFV used by NATO and the US at the hands of a well trained and capable crew. It has to be kept in mind that most of the times that the NATO forces faced off against Russian weaponry, they were usually manned by conscript troops who were not as well trained and skilled as their more professional opponents.

Vetkin -> (4/10/2003 12:03:35 PM)
Russian tanks are lightly armored, you can almost say they are light tanks. They usually have half the armor. The new T-95 is being developed at Nizhny Tagil Here are some good sites on its development: http://www.russia-news.com/freeaccess/new_tank.html There's a schematic-type drawing of it here: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-95.html It's supposed to have been out now but due to lack of funds it's still in its testing stage. It's really impressive looking, with a 152mm gun and a very unique turret and crew protection.

Voriax -> (4/10/2003 2:47:17 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vetkin [B]Russian tanks are lightly armored, you can almost say they are light tanks. [/B][/QUOTE] Well...light tanks...then that applies to just about all the contemporary western tanks. If you look at the service entry years and weight: T-54: 1947, 41 tons T-10: 1956, 52 tons T-55: late 50's, 41 tons T-62: 1963, 40 tons T-64: late 60's, 42 tons T-72: 1973, 41 tons Take these with a grain of salt..I've seen several other numbers, depending of source :) Western: Leo-1: 1965, 42 t. AMX-30: 1967, 36t. M47: 1950, 46t. M48: 1953, 47t. M60A3, 1960, 49t. Centurion, 1947, 52t. Chieftain, 1967, 55t. So, when you look at it, the Soviet tanks were pretty much same weight than western ones. British tanks can be seen bit of an exception in design philosophy. Also soviet tanks tend to be smaller than western so they don't have to coat so much surface with armour. I guess the problem with Sov/russian tanks later on was that for some reason (logistics, road/bridge strengths?) they kept their tanks about same size/weight while western designers made Leo 2's, Challenger 1 and 2's and Abrams. Voriax

Irinami -> (4/10/2003 9:42:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wolfleader [B]Haven't heard about the T-95 yet, can anyone provide me with linkage to more info. [/B][/QUOTE] No, but I can provide you with a link to buy one when they come out, and hook yourself up with a T-90S, some BMD-3's, a 125mm 2S25 SPRUT-SD self-propelled AT gun, and all the small arms and other equipment you need. As the site says, serious inquiries only. [URL=http://www.rusarm.ru/]Rosoboronexport[/URL]: "The Rosoboronexport State Corporation is the sole state intermediary agency for Russia's military exports/imports." Have fun.

Wolfleader -> (4/11/2003 4:46:44 AM)
Thanks for the links. I am so going to have a field day with MobHack now. :D IRT Irinami I hope they have student discounts at that site. :D

Vetkin -> (4/11/2003 1:11:54 PM)
Voriax I think Russian tanks are truly light tanks in a way because the heaviest russian tank today is the T-80UM (46.00 tons, this includes the weight of 6 AT-11 guided missiles.) It is faster than an M1A2 (Max road speed: 70 kph,) and has 425mm rounded frontal armor. The M1A2 on the other hand can be considered a "heavy tank" or a "medium tank" because it is 63.22 tons, max road speed of 65 kph, and has frontal armor that's 670mm thick! (chobham composite) Interesting note: The T-80UM has better REAR armor than the M1A2 by an average of around 25mm thicker.

Voriax -> (4/11/2003 3:41:45 PM)
Vetkin, I'd say 'medium'. But my point was that until recently their tanks were pretty much in the same weight class as western counterparts. Voriax

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75